1 2025:CGHC:25410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3233 of 2025 • Vikas Kumar Manjhi S/o Shri Chandicharan Manjhi Aged About 47 Years R/o Geetanjali Vihar Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur P.S. Civil Line, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Civil Line Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18/06/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 279/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Yatindra Barman lodged an FIR whereby it is alleged that the applicant along with other co- accused persons sold the land to the complainant bearing Khasra No.448/11/C & 448/37/C measuring 3049 & 3921 sq. feet respectively by PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.06.19 17:19:50 +0530 2 way of forgery and preparing the documents, therefore, the FIR has been registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Civil Lines Police Station, Bilaspur and the applicant has been arrested on 13.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the applicant along with three co-accused persons are involved in the present case. It is further stated the anticipatory bail applications of two co-accused persons was rejected by this Court against which they preferred an SLP in which interim protection has been granted. So far as third co-accused is concerned, he has preferred CRMP No. 1765/2025 in which his arrest has been stayed. Further, the present applicant is said to have been in jail since 13.03.2025 and he has no criminal antecedents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposes the prayer made by the applicant and submits that the applicant has threatened the complainant of dire consequences. Contrary to this, counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the complainant himself had entered into the jail and thereafter, threatened the applicant and indulged in a quarrel and committed marpeet. In this regard, the applicant has made complaint to the concerned Superintendent of Police who has ordered for CCTV footage and enquiry into the matter. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent/State also opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed in this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the 3 applicant along with three co-accused persons are involved in the present case, and as stated that the anticipatory bail applications of two co-accused persons was rejected by this Court against which they preferred an SLP in which interim protection has been granted to them, so far as the third co-accused is concerned, he has preferred CRMP No. 1765/2025 in which his arrest has been stayed, further considering the fact that the complainant had entered into the jail and thereafter, threatened the applicant and indulged in a quarrel and committed marpeet with him, regarding which the applicant has made a complaint to the concerned Superintendent of Police who has ordered for CCTV footage and enquiry into the matter, further considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 13.03.2025, he has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant - Vikas Kumar Manjhi, involved in Crime No. 279/2025 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In 4 case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Preeti